Check if macro is fully expandable

Question

Is there a way to check whether a macro is fully expandable (or rather "safe in an expansion-only context" [1])?

Consider this code:

defaJust a string
defba
defcdefunsafe
defdc

How could I check which of the macros (a-d) are safe in an expansion-only context? By looking at them I know that a and b are whereas c and d are not but if I wanted to know the same for a macro I haven't written myself this could get quite useful.

Background

I am working on a way to detect whether some input is a valid number in PGF. For this I developed this approach which makes use of passing the input into pgfmathfloatparsenumber.

The problem I have run into is that said macro appears to somehow manages to expand the input until there is an error (if the input is in fact not safe in an expansion-only-context). I tried using protected, noexpand and similar but somehow PGF manages to circumvent those.

So the idea is to check whether the input is safe before actually passing it to PGF. The problem is: I don't know how I'd go about that...

asked Dec 13 at 8:02

Raven

786111

4

you can't :-)...
– David Carlisle
Dec 13 at 8:04

4

well you can always do something of course, in the example you give it would be hard in general to avoid an undefined command error on that input, if you defined unsafe first then the edef would give something bad but would probably not give an error during the actual edef, such cases you can probably detect. similarly if you have edeffoo mbox you are going to get a low level parse error if you expand mbox and it hits the } it woul dbe verh hard to avoid such errors if you allow bad input
– David Carlisle
Dec 13 at 8:11

if you know in advance that the thing must expand say to some digits, you could try romannumeral-`0 triggered expansion, then examine first token if a digit ok remove and repeat and do repetitively until either nothing is left or you hit some unexpandable token which is not a digit. You have to detect case of braces etc... The idea here is that edef can cause errors if your material is not expandable, but "full-first" expansion will not.
– jfbu
Dec 13 at 8:46

1

No, you misunderstood. I said "if the thing must expand say to some digits". If letters also are allowed then you only have to take that into account. The point is that if you know in advance what must be the full expansion outcome, then you can check it.
– jfbu
Dec 13 at 8:50

1

@Skillmon perhaps you think of Bruno's 'unravel'
– jfbu
Dec 13 at 15:04

|
show 21 more comments

Question

Is there a way to check whether a macro is fully expandable (or rather "safe in an expansion-only context" [1])?

Consider this code:

defaJust a string
defba
defcdefunsafe
defdc

Background

So the idea is to check whether the input is safe before actually passing it to PGF. The problem is: I don't know how I'd go about that...

asked Dec 13 at 8:02

Raven

786111

4

you can't :-)...
– David Carlisle
Dec 13 at 8:04

4

well you can always do something of course, in the example you give it would be hard in general to avoid an undefined command error on that input, if you defined unsafe first then the edef would give something bad but would probably not give an error during the actual edef, such cases you can probably detect. similarly if you have edeffoo mbox you are going to get a low level parse error if you expand mbox and it hits the } it woul dbe verh hard to avoid such errors if you allow bad input
– David Carlisle
Dec 13 at 8:11

if you know in advance that the thing must expand say to some digits, you could try romannumeral-`0 triggered expansion, then examine first token if a digit ok remove and repeat and do repetitively until either nothing is left or you hit some unexpandable token which is not a digit. You have to detect case of braces etc... The idea here is that edef can cause errors if your material is not expandable, but "full-first" expansion will not.
– jfbu
Dec 13 at 8:46

1

No, you misunderstood. I said "if the thing must expand say to some digits". If letters also are allowed then you only have to take that into account. The point is that if you know in advance what must be the full expansion outcome, then you can check it.
– jfbu
Dec 13 at 8:50

1

@Skillmon perhaps you think of Bruno's 'unravel'
– jfbu
Dec 13 at 15:04

|
show 21 more comments

Question

Is there a way to check whether a macro is fully expandable (or rather "safe in an expansion-only context" [1])?

Consider this code:

defaJust a string
defba
defcdefunsafe
defdc

Background

So the idea is to check whether the input is safe before actually passing it to PGF. The problem is: I don't know how I'd go about that...

asked Dec 13 at 8:02

Raven

786111

Question

Is there a way to check whether a macro is fully expandable (or rather "safe in an expansion-only context" [1])?

Consider this code:

defaJust a string
defba
defcdefunsafe
defdc

Background

So the idea is to check whether the input is safe before actually passing it to PGF. The problem is: I don't know how I'd go about that...

tex-core expansion

asked Dec 13 at 8:02

Raven

786111

asked Dec 13 at 8:02

Raven

786111

asked Dec 13 at 8:02

Raven

786111

asked Dec 13 at 8:02

Raven

786111

asked Dec 13 at 8:02

Raven

786111

4

you can't :-)...
– David Carlisle
Dec 13 at 8:04

4

well you can always do something of course, in the example you give it would be hard in general to avoid an undefined command error on that input, if you defined unsafe first then the edef would give something bad but would probably not give an error during the actual edef, such cases you can probably detect. similarly if you have edeffoo mbox you are going to get a low level parse error if you expand mbox and it hits the } it woul dbe verh hard to avoid such errors if you allow bad input
– David Carlisle
Dec 13 at 8:11

if you know in advance that the thing must expand say to some digits, you could try romannumeral-`0 triggered expansion, then examine first token if a digit ok remove and repeat and do repetitively until either nothing is left or you hit some unexpandable token which is not a digit. You have to detect case of braces etc... The idea here is that edef can cause errors if your material is not expandable, but "full-first" expansion will not.
– jfbu
Dec 13 at 8:46

1

No, you misunderstood. I said "if the thing must expand say to some digits". If letters also are allowed then you only have to take that into account. The point is that if you know in advance what must be the full expansion outcome, then you can check it.
– jfbu
Dec 13 at 8:50

1

@Skillmon perhaps you think of Bruno's 'unravel'
– jfbu
Dec 13 at 15:04

|
show 21 more comments

4

you can't :-)...
– David Carlisle
Dec 13 at 8:04

4

well you can always do something of course, in the example you give it would be hard in general to avoid an undefined command error on that input, if you defined unsafe first then the edef would give something bad but would probably not give an error during the actual edef, such cases you can probably detect. similarly if you have edeffoo mbox you are going to get a low level parse error if you expand mbox and it hits the } it woul dbe verh hard to avoid such errors if you allow bad input
– David Carlisle
Dec 13 at 8:11

if you know in advance that the thing must expand say to some digits, you could try romannumeral-`0 triggered expansion, then examine first token if a digit ok remove and repeat and do repetitively until either nothing is left or you hit some unexpandable token which is not a digit. You have to detect case of braces etc... The idea here is that edef can cause errors if your material is not expandable, but "full-first" expansion will not.
– jfbu
Dec 13 at 8:46

1

No, you misunderstood. I said "if the thing must expand say to some digits". If letters also are allowed then you only have to take that into account. The point is that if you know in advance what must be the full expansion outcome, then you can check it.
– jfbu
Dec 13 at 8:50

1

@Skillmon perhaps you think of Bruno's 'unravel'
– jfbu
Dec 13 at 15:04

you can't :-)...
– David Carlisle
Dec 13 at 8:04

well you can always do something of course, in the example you give it would be hard in general to avoid an undefined command error on that input, if you defined unsafe first then the edef would give something bad but would probably not give an error during the actual edef, such cases you can probably detect. similarly if you have edeffoo mbox you are going to get a low level parse error if you expand mbox and it hits the } it woul dbe verh hard to avoid such errors if you allow bad input
– David Carlisle
Dec 13 at 8:11

if you know in advance that the thing must expand say to some digits, you could try romannumeral-`0 triggered expansion, then examine first token if a digit ok remove and repeat and do repetitively until either nothing is left or you hit some unexpandable token which is not a digit. You have to detect case of braces etc... The idea here is that edef can cause errors if your material is not expandable, but "full-first" expansion will not.
– jfbu
Dec 13 at 8:46

No, you misunderstood. I said "if the thing must expand say to some digits". If letters also are allowed then you only have to take that into account. The point is that if you know in advance what must be the full expansion outcome, then you can check it.
– jfbu
Dec 13 at 8:50

@Skillmon perhaps you think of Bruno's 'unravel'
– jfbu
Dec 13 at 15:04

|
show 21 more comments

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

Did I hear someone say that it's not possible?

The following defines ifexpandable which checks whether a token is expandable (actually you can also give it a list of tokens and it checks whether all of them are expandable). I don't know whether this has any side effects. Requires LuaTeX.

documentclassarticle

defifexpandablelua%
 directlua
 local t = token.scan_toks()
 local b = true
 for n,v in ipairs(t) do
 local is_assign =
 string.find(v.cmdname, "assign") string~= nil or
 string.find(v.cmdname, "def") string~= nil or
 string.find(v.cmdname, "let") string~= nil or
 string.find(v.cmdname, "box") string~= nil
 local is_call = string.find(v.cmdname, "call") string~= nil
 print(v.cmdname, is_assign, is_call)
 b = b and (not is_assign) and (is_call and v.expandable or true)
 end
 if b then
 tex.sprint("string\iftrue")
 else
 tex.sprint("string\iffalse")
 end
 %


defifexpandable#1%
 expandafterifexpandableluaexpandafterromannumeral-`0#1%


begindocument

defaJust a string
defba
defcdefunsafe
defdc

edefisexpandable%
 ifexpandablesection
 expandable
 else
 not expandable
 fi

isexpandable

enddocument

edited Dec 16 at 1:34

answered Dec 13 at 9:01

Henri Menke

69.6k8155258

What about something like deffoohboxifexpandablefoo?
– Joseph Wright♦
Dec 13 at 9:03

@JosephWright foo is expandable, i.e. you have to expand it once and ask ifexpandable again. I tried to expand step-wise with token.expand but quickly realised that I actually have no idea what this function is doing.
– Henri Menke
Dec 13 at 9:03

1

I think the OP query is not testing one token but testing an entire input which may conceivably be foo Ebar for example.
– jfbu
Dec 13 at 9:06

1

@Raven You could additionally check for v.cmdname. This field holds information about the token, i.e. whether it is a def or let or letter or other_char etc.
– Henri Menke
Dec 13 at 9:29

1

@Raven I have improved my answer. It is now using the romannumeral trick to expand everything up to the first unexpandable token. Then I feed that result into Lua to check whether there is any unexpandable call or assignment inside.
– Henri Menke
Dec 16 at 1:21

|
show 8 more comments

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "85"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);

);

draft saved

draft discarded

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f464646%2fcheck-if-macro-is-fully-expandable%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

Did I hear someone say that it's not possible?

documentclassarticle

defifexpandablelua%
 directlua
 local t = token.scan_toks()
 local b = true
 for n,v in ipairs(t) do
 local is_assign =
 string.find(v.cmdname, "assign") string~= nil or
 string.find(v.cmdname, "def") string~= nil or
 string.find(v.cmdname, "let") string~= nil or
 string.find(v.cmdname, "box") string~= nil
 local is_call = string.find(v.cmdname, "call") string~= nil
 print(v.cmdname, is_assign, is_call)
 b = b and (not is_assign) and (is_call and v.expandable or true)
 end
 if b then
 tex.sprint("string\iftrue")
 else
 tex.sprint("string\iffalse")
 end
 %


defifexpandable#1%
 expandafterifexpandableluaexpandafterromannumeral-`0#1%


begindocument

defaJust a string
defba
defcdefunsafe
defdc

edefisexpandable%
 ifexpandablesection
 expandable
 else
 not expandable
 fi

isexpandable

enddocument

edited Dec 16 at 1:34

answered Dec 13 at 9:01

Henri Menke

69.6k8155258

What about something like deffoohboxifexpandablefoo?
– Joseph Wright♦
Dec 13 at 9:03

@JosephWright foo is expandable, i.e. you have to expand it once and ask ifexpandable again. I tried to expand step-wise with token.expand but quickly realised that I actually have no idea what this function is doing.
– Henri Menke
Dec 13 at 9:03

1

I think the OP query is not testing one token but testing an entire input which may conceivably be foo Ebar for example.
– jfbu
Dec 13 at 9:06

1

@Raven You could additionally check for v.cmdname. This field holds information about the token, i.e. whether it is a def or let or letter or other_char etc.
– Henri Menke
Dec 13 at 9:29

1

@Raven I have improved my answer. It is now using the romannumeral trick to expand everything up to the first unexpandable token. Then I feed that result into Lua to check whether there is any unexpandable call or assignment inside.
– Henri Menke
Dec 16 at 1:21

|
show 8 more comments

Did I hear someone say that it's not possible?

documentclassarticle

defifexpandablelua%
 directlua
 local t = token.scan_toks()
 local b = true
 for n,v in ipairs(t) do
 local is_assign =
 string.find(v.cmdname, "assign") string~= nil or
 string.find(v.cmdname, "def") string~= nil or
 string.find(v.cmdname, "let") string~= nil or
 string.find(v.cmdname, "box") string~= nil
 local is_call = string.find(v.cmdname, "call") string~= nil
 print(v.cmdname, is_assign, is_call)
 b = b and (not is_assign) and (is_call and v.expandable or true)
 end
 if b then
 tex.sprint("string\iftrue")
 else
 tex.sprint("string\iffalse")
 end
 %


defifexpandable#1%
 expandafterifexpandableluaexpandafterromannumeral-`0#1%


begindocument

defaJust a string
defba
defcdefunsafe
defdc

edefisexpandable%
 ifexpandablesection
 expandable
 else
 not expandable
 fi

isexpandable

enddocument

edited Dec 16 at 1:34

answered Dec 13 at 9:01

Henri Menke

69.6k8155258

What about something like deffoohboxifexpandablefoo?
– Joseph Wright♦
Dec 13 at 9:03

@JosephWright foo is expandable, i.e. you have to expand it once and ask ifexpandable again. I tried to expand step-wise with token.expand but quickly realised that I actually have no idea what this function is doing.
– Henri Menke
Dec 13 at 9:03

1

I think the OP query is not testing one token but testing an entire input which may conceivably be foo Ebar for example.
– jfbu
Dec 13 at 9:06

1

@Raven You could additionally check for v.cmdname. This field holds information about the token, i.e. whether it is a def or let or letter or other_char etc.
– Henri Menke
Dec 13 at 9:29

1

@Raven I have improved my answer. It is now using the romannumeral trick to expand everything up to the first unexpandable token. Then I feed that result into Lua to check whether there is any unexpandable call or assignment inside.
– Henri Menke
Dec 16 at 1:21

|
show 8 more comments

Did I hear someone say that it's not possible?

documentclassarticle

defifexpandablelua%
 directlua
 local t = token.scan_toks()
 local b = true
 for n,v in ipairs(t) do
 local is_assign =
 string.find(v.cmdname, "assign") string~= nil or
 string.find(v.cmdname, "def") string~= nil or
 string.find(v.cmdname, "let") string~= nil or
 string.find(v.cmdname, "box") string~= nil
 local is_call = string.find(v.cmdname, "call") string~= nil
 print(v.cmdname, is_assign, is_call)
 b = b and (not is_assign) and (is_call and v.expandable or true)
 end
 if b then
 tex.sprint("string\iftrue")
 else
 tex.sprint("string\iffalse")
 end
 %


defifexpandable#1%
 expandafterifexpandableluaexpandafterromannumeral-`0#1%


begindocument

defaJust a string
defba
defcdefunsafe
defdc

edefisexpandable%
 ifexpandablesection
 expandable
 else
 not expandable
 fi

isexpandable

enddocument

edited Dec 16 at 1:34

answered Dec 13 at 9:01

Henri Menke

69.6k8155258

Did I hear someone say that it's not possible?

documentclassarticle

defifexpandablelua%
 directlua
 local t = token.scan_toks()
 local b = true
 for n,v in ipairs(t) do
 local is_assign =
 string.find(v.cmdname, "assign") string~= nil or
 string.find(v.cmdname, "def") string~= nil or
 string.find(v.cmdname, "let") string~= nil or
 string.find(v.cmdname, "box") string~= nil
 local is_call = string.find(v.cmdname, "call") string~= nil
 print(v.cmdname, is_assign, is_call)
 b = b and (not is_assign) and (is_call and v.expandable or true)
 end
 if b then
 tex.sprint("string\iftrue")
 else
 tex.sprint("string\iffalse")
 end
 %


defifexpandable#1%
 expandafterifexpandableluaexpandafterromannumeral-`0#1%


begindocument

defaJust a string
defba
defcdefunsafe
defdc

edefisexpandable%
 ifexpandablesection
 expandable
 else
 not expandable
 fi

isexpandable

enddocument

edited Dec 16 at 1:34

answered Dec 13 at 9:01

Henri Menke

69.6k8155258

edited Dec 16 at 1:34

answered Dec 13 at 9:01

Henri Menke

69.6k8155258

answered Dec 13 at 9:01

Henri Menke

69.6k8155258

answered Dec 13 at 9:01

Henri Menke

69.6k8155258

What about something like deffoohboxifexpandablefoo?
– Joseph Wright♦
Dec 13 at 9:03

@JosephWright foo is expandable, i.e. you have to expand it once and ask ifexpandable again. I tried to expand step-wise with token.expand but quickly realised that I actually have no idea what this function is doing.
– Henri Menke
Dec 13 at 9:03

1

I think the OP query is not testing one token but testing an entire input which may conceivably be foo Ebar for example.
– jfbu
Dec 13 at 9:06

1

@Raven You could additionally check for v.cmdname. This field holds information about the token, i.e. whether it is a def or let or letter or other_char etc.
– Henri Menke
Dec 13 at 9:29

1

@Raven I have improved my answer. It is now using the romannumeral trick to expand everything up to the first unexpandable token. Then I feed that result into Lua to check whether there is any unexpandable call or assignment inside.
– Henri Menke
Dec 16 at 1:21

|
show 8 more comments

What about something like deffoohboxifexpandablefoo?
– Joseph Wright♦
Dec 13 at 9:03

@JosephWright foo is expandable, i.e. you have to expand it once and ask ifexpandable again. I tried to expand step-wise with token.expand but quickly realised that I actually have no idea what this function is doing.
– Henri Menke
Dec 13 at 9:03

1

I think the OP query is not testing one token but testing an entire input which may conceivably be foo Ebar for example.
– jfbu
Dec 13 at 9:06

1

@Raven You could additionally check for v.cmdname. This field holds information about the token, i.e. whether it is a def or let or letter or other_char etc.
– Henri Menke
Dec 13 at 9:29

1

@Raven I have improved my answer. It is now using the romannumeral trick to expand everything up to the first unexpandable token. Then I feed that result into Lua to check whether there is any unexpandable call or assignment inside.
– Henri Menke
Dec 16 at 1:21

What about something like deffoohboxifexpandablefoo?
– Joseph Wright♦
Dec 13 at 9:03

@JosephWright foo is expandable, i.e. you have to expand it once and ask ifexpandable again. I tried to expand step-wise with token.expand but quickly realised that I actually have no idea what this function is doing.
– Henri Menke
Dec 13 at 9:03

I think the OP query is not testing one token but testing an entire input which may conceivably be foo Ebar for example.
– jfbu
Dec 13 at 9:06

@Raven You could additionally check for v.cmdname. This field holds information about the token, i.e. whether it is a def or let or letter or other_char etc.
– Henri Menke
Dec 13 at 9:29

@Raven I have improved my answer. It is now using the romannumeral trick to expand everything up to the first unexpandable token. Then I feed that result into Lua to check whether there is any unexpandable call or assignment inside.
– Henri Menke
Dec 16 at 1:21

|
show 8 more comments

draft saved

draft discarded

Thanks for contributing an answer to TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange!

Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …

Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.

Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.

Please pay close attention to the following guidance:

Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …

Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.

draft saved

draft discarded

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

搜尋此網誌

mjhjmtu